The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

An ongoing project to survey the best films of individual decades, genres, and filmmakers
Post Reply
Message
Author
bamwc2
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#251 Post by bamwc2 »

Viewing Log:

2069: A Sex Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1974): Five Venusian travel to Earth to track down sperm to bring life to their female only planet. They land in a small Bavarian town where they are mistaken for French Olympians training for the ski team. They quickly find that their plan to hook the local men up to milking machines is not as efficient or fun as having sex with them. From there, there are numerous sex scenes with an abundance of gratuitous nudity. I'm really confused by this one. What were Kubrick and Clarke thinking with this sequel? This was nothing like their first film. There were no monoliths and it never even gives you a hint at the meaning of the space baby from the original. As a heterosexual man, I appreciated all the uh...mise en scène, but it was pretty silly. I've got to call this a rare misstep for the maestro.

Colossal (Nacho Vigalondo, 2016): Gloria (Anne Hathaway) loses her job in NYC and moves back to her small hometown. There she encounters Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), a childhood friend, and begins working at his bar. Around that time a giant monster begins destroying Seoul Godzilla style. Initially shocked by the event, Gloria quickly realizes that the monster in South Korea responds to her movements when she is in her town's park. Soon a giant robot responsive to Oscar appears in Seoul as well, but as he begins a downward spiral he presents a bigger threat to denizens of the city than Gloria who has a new sense of responsibility. It's not exactly clear to me that this qualifies as science fiction, but with the wide net cast on page one of this thread, I suppose it fits. The film was...okay, I guess. It was an interesting premise from writer/director Nacho Vigalondo, but it seemed to frequently get bogged down into the mumblecore trappings of Millennial ennui. I wouldn't call it bad, but maybe bland.

Death Race (Paul W.S. Anderson, 2008): Speaking of bad, Armond White's golden boy, Paul W.S. Anderson defiles the memory of Paul Bartel's 1975 masterpiece Death Race 2000 by stripping away everything that made it great and leaving behind a soulless, boring husk of a movie. This one begins with the death of racer Frankenstein, the star of the original, but just a faceless stand in in this iteration. As a response, evil prison warden Hennessey (a slumming Joan Allen) arranges for the murder of Jensen Ames's (Jason Statham) wife and his wrongful conviction for it so that he can become the new Frankenstein. From there, it's just one empty, poorly choreographed race after another without any rhyme, reason, or purpose beyond the spectacle of it all. No character is believable here, and nothing matters. With apologies to Tyrese Gibson, there will only ever be one Machine Gun Joe. Image

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (Alexander Witt, 2004): Speaking of Paul W.S. Anderson trash, I saw his adaptation of Resident Evil when it came out in theaters during the early part of the century. I hated it so much that I never bothered to check out any of its sequels. That's why I was gobsmacked when Slant named Resident Evil: Retribution as one of their 100 best sci-fi films ever made. I encountered another list that called that entry one of the best films of 2012, so I decided to go through the series and see what I thought. This time Anderson handles writing duties, but leaves the direction up to frequent second unit director Alexander Witt. Milla Jovovich returns as ex-Umbrella security agent Alice, but is now joined by Raccoon City police officer Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory). The infection leaks above ground in this one, leaving the city's residents in a mad dash to flee. Those that stay behind are transformed into the living dead that can be easily killed with a bullet to the head or, uh..having their necks broken. Alice and Jill are on the hunt for the daughter of an Umbrella scientist who didn't make it out during the evacuation, but are being stalked by the Nemesis (Matthew G. Taylor) a half cyborg/zombie crossbreed that carries a rail gun and a missile launcher with him wherever he goes. Does this sound stupid to you? I guarantee that my description does not adequately convey the level of mind boggingly awfulness of the script. It's the kind of movie where every heroine is constantly kicking zombies in the head with a "woosh" sound effect added in. As a pubescent 12-year-old, I fell in love with Jovovich after seeing her in Return to the Blue Lagoon and Chaplin. Even remembering that long ago crush couldn't make me stomach this. Retribution better be worth it, because, dear God, I don't know how many more of these I can handle.

The World, The Flesh and The Devil (Ranald MacDougall, 1959): Harry Belafonte plays Ralph Burton a coal miner stuck underground for several days. No one comes to help him, and when he finally manages to extricate himself he finds an abandoned town with newspapers reporting on a nuclear war with their final editions. He gets a car and makes his way East to New York, where he spends several weeks alone looking for survivors. Eventually, Sarah Crandall (Inger Stevens) comes across him and the two form a fast friendship. Matters are complicated, however, when a third survivor, Benson Thacker (Mel Ferrer) cruises into the city's port after spending months at sea. Benson is triggered by the man to woman ratio, and wants to kill Ralph as a way to solve it. For his part, Ralph is fine to leave Sarah and him together, but Benson won't let it be and hunts Ralph through the streets with a rifle. I know that I played the sci-fi gatekeeper earlier, but again, this felt about as science fiction the scenario in On the Beach. Both things could happen, but we don't really need to modify our existing technology in any way to do it. Oh well. I'd call it more interesting than it was memorable. It's not bad, but just not one that would ever make it onto my list.

The World's End (Edgar Wright, 2013): 40-something-year-old man child Gary King (Simon Pegg) still lives in the halcyon days of his teenage years when he and his mates attempted a pub crawl that would have seen them go to 12 different bars in one night. His inability to complete it has been Gary's single greatest regret in his whole life, so 25 years later, he tries to get his friends Andy (Nick Frost), Oliver (Martin Freeman), Steven (Paddy Considine), and Peter (Eddie Marsan) to recreate that night with a successful end at the pub called The World's End. Things are slightly off as they return to the town, but when Gary gets into a fight with a local teenager, he knocks his head off its socket and a blue liquid pours out. Soon enough they realize that almost all of the town's population has been replaced by alien replicants, and that they could very well be next. I expected the one liners going in, but didn't know too much about the plot or see the expertly executed fight sequences coming. Wright is a master visual storyteller, and his editing skills are on full display here. Alternating between hilarity and heartbreak, puns and pathos, the film masterfully handles all of its elements. It's a strong contender for my list.

The X from Outer Space (Kazui Nihonmatsu, 1968): When Criterion first released Eclipse Series 37: When Horror Came to Shochiku, I watched and enjoyed Goke, Body Snatcher from Hell on Hulu and loved the campy monster tale. So, I was excited about going back to visit the remaining films in the set. I began with The X from Outer Space, and am sad to report that its a major step down in quality from Goke. In this film, a group of international astronauts lift off from Tokyo for a manned mission in outer space. There they encounter a meteor that has some strange glowing rocks on it. They take one back to Earth, where it's revealed to be a spore that hatches while burning through the lower floors like Alien would do less than a decade later. The spore grows into a giant beaked kaiju that ravages the city in a monster suit. It's kind of like Godzilla, but dumber and less threatening. Nothing in the movie makes any sense whatsoever, and special effects actually look worse than they did 13 years earlier in Godzilla. Maybe you can enjoy its camp value, but I could not find one single redeeming feature in it.
User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:40 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#252 Post by therewillbeblus »

I didn't know 2069: A Sex Odyssey was directed by Kubrick :wink:

Colossal can be accused of many things, but focusing on any "mumblecore trappings of Millennial ennui" as a weakness is surely missing the point of the film's central theme of sobering up to the very real destructiveness of self-involvement, from addiction to deeply ingrained emotional distress, where those interpersonal scenes highlight just how lonely and disconnected everyone is from one another and themselves. I don't see anything "mumblecore" about it at all actually, and the film actually works against the strategies of that movement's method of fleshing out characters, particularly in the case of Sudeikis who is given less and less time, space and recognition to engage in a way that would validate his ennui. Also, as a clear narrative on alcoholism, I'm not sure "Millennial ennui" is a fair synonymous critique of the process of coping with the disease/mental illness, not that this was your intention!
Last edited by therewillbeblus on Sun Aug 23, 2020 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#253 Post by domino harvey »

I don't like Colossal but as someone who's seen actual Mumblecore films, there are no trappings of those stylistics in it. If anything, it is indebted to the slickly made "return to home" indies of the 00s (Winter Passing et al), not amateur improving
User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:40 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#254 Post by therewillbeblus »

Definitely agree, and while we disagree on the merits of the film, I find Vigalondo's subversion of that subgenre's expectations to be fascinating in his subtly moralistic barometer of assigning validation to characters. It takes great skills in command of tones and themes to empathize so strongly with Hathaway's complexities and take a relativist position on the value of her humanity, while simultaneously straight-up assassinating another character's dignity by way of reversing the expected forward-momentum of traditionally expansive characterization, transforming them from complex person into a deserved unidimensional cartoon.
bamwc2
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#255 Post by bamwc2 »

I've seen the early Joe Swanberg films. The conversations between Gloria and Oscar reminded me of them. Sorry.
User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:40 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#256 Post by therewillbeblus »

I can't bring myself to vote for the entire anthology film Memories, but I have to single out the Satoshi Kon-scripted first short Magnetic Rose as a masterpiece of sci-fi horror. There are nods to Alien's narrative, but over time as we acclimate to the concept it's revealed to be an allegory of
Spoiler
coercive psychological manipulation and emotional abuse, stalker syndrome, and overall one-sided relationship hostage-taking.
The aesthetics are terrific in building a world that moves like a nightmare we are both lost in and that then becomes uncomfortable familiar, wavering between the two, preying on our most vulnerable memories as weapons for our oppressor's cause.
User avatar
bottled spider
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:59 am

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#257 Post by bottled spider »

Blade Runner
At first blush, Blade Runner may appear to be a mediocre popcorn movie, but closer analysis reveals an ingeniously crafted work of almost monumental idiocy:
  • If people care about the distinction between humans and replicants, why make the replicants so humanlike in the first place?
  • If replicants are not granted personhood, why endow them with individuality? It would be more efficient to manufacture them all alike.
  • The replicants are supposedly so physically indistinguishable from humans that they can only be identified by a psychological test. Shouldn't their superhuman strength and ability to immerse their hands in liquid nitrogen or boiling water without injury be dead giveaways? Clearly replicants are not composed of flesh.
  • It would be common sense to manufacture replicants with indelible identifying marks, permanently embedded tracking devices, and above all, remote control kill switches.
  • Eschewing common sense for plot convenience, Tyrell Corps resorts instead to the half measure of a pre-set lifespan. Which only raises the question: why bother hunting down replicants that are on the brink of expiry?
  • Replicants are implanted with just a few childhood memories, to cushion their existential vertigo. So a replicant who didn't know it could infer its replicancy from the extensive gaps in its adult life history, and if it didn't do so it would experience a state of amnesiac confusion. Neither of which are true for Rachael or Deckard.
  • How does Bryant come to have photographs of the replicants, but Tyrell Corps not? (No need to test Leon if you have his picture).
  • How did Bryant learn that Rachael is a replicant, and gone AWOL? Not from either Tyrell or Deckard, surely.
  • How did Rachael get hold of a gun, and how did she come to be in the right place at the right time to save Deckard from Leon?
And so forth. The hilarious/depressing "do you even read Freud, bruh?" nonsense in the dedicated thread does nothing to persuade me this is a masterpiece.

The writers evidently never heard the maxim “kill your darlings,” for the script is lousy with quotable lines, saving the worst for last with that embarrassing final soliloquy. Quotable lines, but little genuine dialogue. Rachael’s Voight-Kampff test could have been tense, revelatory, poignant, witty –- entire movies have been made of a single interview –- but the test is glossed over. The odious it’s-not-really-rape-if-she-likes-it rape scene was the perfect opportunity for, instead, a meaningful conversation or argument between Deckard and Rachael, to probe each other's intentions and trustworthiness. (Given the film's noirish tone, it’s a shame Rachael didn't emerge as a femme fatale, perhaps an avenging angel of her murdered brethren, perhaps a stooge for the authorities). One last gripe: dropping coy hints that Deckard might be a replicant is shallow and lazy if his replicancy is not made consequential – it’s just a faux enigma.

Heart of a Dog (Bortko, 1988)
An excellent adaptation of Bulgakov's novella, one is tempted to say an improvement. A gleeful exercise in épater le prolétariat, although, being a kind of science fiction version Boudu Saved from Drowning, the bourgeoisie get theirs too. There are elements of Frankenstein, and elements of Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde (the actor playing the dog-man Sharikov even reminds me of Barrault as Opale in The Testament of Dr. Cordelier). The dog-man's madcap balalaika performance in front of a stunned Russian Academy of Science is one of the crowning glories of Russian cinema.

This should to be Criterionized, with improved subtitles, extras on Bulgakov & Bortko, and a Zizek commentary.
User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:24 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#258 Post by zedz »

I've just done a trawl of my memory (and decades lists) to see if I have enough favourite sci-fi films to make a list. That seems like a probably.

Here are some recommendations of films from the last decade (alongside The Long Walk and Last and First Men, already discussed above, and obvious things like High Life) that I'm considering:

Under Electric Clouds (Alexei German Jr., 2015): Serious, sprawling arthouse epic that leaps backwards and forwards in time to parcel out a complex multi-character story and sketch a bleak state-of / future-of-the-nation portrait.

The Untamed (Amat Escalante, 2016): Creepy psychosexual monster movie. It's more on the horror side of the barbed-wire fence, but the monster comes from space, so it has one tentacle over this side too.

World of Tomorrow (Don Hertzfeld, 2015): We all already love Hertzfeld, right? Good. So let's not forget this gem.

I also note that La Flor is, at least partly, a science fiction film (the conspiracy plots in the second and fourth episode), but that's probably not enough to get it over the line for me, unless other supporters want to twist my arm.

And there's a really great film from the beginning of the decade that probably isn't an obvious candidate but will rank quite high for me (unless there's some obscure enforcement procedure about genre elements having to be explicit to qualify for the list), and whose title I can't even mention in the context of this thread without it being a spoiler. But I have left a couple of clues.
User avatar
Mr Sausage
Has Risen from the Grave
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:02 am
Location: Canada

The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#259 Post by Mr Sausage »

bottled spider wrote:Blade Runner
At first blush, Blade Runner may appear to be a mediocre popcorn movie, but closer analysis reveals an ingeniously crafted work of almost monumental idiocy:
  • If people care about the distinction between humans and replicants, why make the replicants so humanlike in the first place?
  • If replicants are not granted personhood, why endow them with individuality? It would be more efficient to manufacture them all alike.
  • The replicants are supposedly so physically indistinguishable from humans that they can only be identified by a psychological test. Shouldn't their superhuman strength and ability to immerse their hands in liquid nitrogen or boiling water without injury be dead giveaways? Clearly replicants are not composed of flesh.
  • It would be common sense to manufacture replicants with indelible identifying marks, permanently embedded tracking devices, and above all, remote control kill switches.
  • Eschewing common sense for plot convenience, Tyrell Corps resorts instead to the half measure of a pre-set lifespan. Which only raises the question: why bother hunting down replicants that are on the brink of expiry?
  • Replicants are implanted with just a few childhood memories, to cushion their existential vertigo. So a replicant who didn't know it could infer its replicancy from the extensive gaps in its adult life history, and if it didn't do so it would experience a state of amnesiac confusion. Neither of which are true for Rachael or Deckard.
  • How does Bryant come to have photographs of the replicants, but Tyrell Corps not? (No need to test Leon if you have his picture).
  • How did Bryant learn that Rachael is a replicant, and gone AWOL? Not from either Tyrell or Deckard, surely.
  • How did Rachael get hold of a gun, and how did she come to be in the right place at the right time to save Deckard from Leon?
And so forth. The hilarious/depressing "do you even read Freud, bruh?" nonsense in the dedicated thread does nothing to persuade me this is a masterpiece.

The writers evidently never heard the maxim “kill your darlings,” for the script is lousy with quotable lines, saving the worst for last with that embarrassing final soliloquy. Quotable lines, but little genuine dialogue. Rachael’s Voight-Kampff test could have been tense, revelatory, poignant, witty –- entire movies have been made of a single interview –- but the test is glossed over. The odious it’s-not-really-rape-if-she-likes-it rape scene was the perfect opportunity for, instead, a meaningful conversation or argument between Deckard and Rachael, to probe each other's intentions and trustworthiness. (Given the film's noirish tone, it’s a shame Rachael didn't emerge as a femme fatale, perhaps an avenging angel of her murdered brethren, perhaps a stooge for the authorities). One last gripe: dropping coy hints that Deckard might be a replicant is shallow and lazy if his replicancy is not made consequential – it’s just a faux enigma.
Rachel is using the gun Leon had knocked out of Deckard’s hand.
User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:25 pm
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#260 Post by swo17 »

zedz wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:03 pm And there's a really great film from the beginning of the decade that probably isn't an obvious candidate but will rank quite high for me (unless there's some obscure enforcement procedure about genre elements having to be explicit to qualify for the list), and whose title I can't even mention in the context of this thread without it being a spoiler. But I have left a couple of clues.
Spoiler
Turin Horse?
User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:24 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#261 Post by zedz »

Oh, and I think I'd count Holy Motors as a science fiction film too, come to think of it.

I'll need to rewatch Mysterious Skin (Gregg Araki, 2004) to see exactly how the sci-fi elements sit to decide on its inclusion, but his later Ka-Boom (2010) is a bonkers blast that fits. Don't know if it will make my list, but it should be a fun rewatch.

Werner Herzog's Lessons of Darkness (1992) and Fata Morgana (1971) are generally classified as documentaries, but they're explicitly science fiction films (and are both great) wherein the startling documentary footage is recontextualized as visions of alien worlds by the narration.

I would dearly love to see Sogo Ishii's August in the Water (1995) again, though it will probably still make my list on fumes. It's a bizarre collision of high school drama, paranoia film and old fashioned hard science fiction. I might also make room for his Electric Dragon 80,000 V (2001), the best superhero movie ever.

I'm also looking forward to revisiting a few Japanese New Wave films like The Face of Another and Heroic Purgatory.
User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:49 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#262 Post by knives »

Mysterious Skin as sci-fi?
User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:40 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#263 Post by therewillbeblus »

zedz wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:03 pm I also note that La Flor is, at least partly, a science fiction film (the conspiracy plots in the second and fourth episode), but that's probably not enough to get it over the line for me, unless other supporters want to twist my arm.
Dammit, well now I'm going to be mulling this one over for six months.

It's a tough call because the film is resorting to all kinds of fiction, including science-fiction especially at its zenith, to prove its hypothesis
Spoiler
which I still read to be the soulful line in the fourth chapter: “if you film someone next to a tree, something happens that it doesn’t if you film the tree alone,” driving home the celebration of humanity's infinite shades of beauty, as seen through observation of these four women in various contexts.
However, I'm definitely including films like Mauvais Sang that don't rest on their science-fiction influences, so we'll see. A good excuse to watch it yet again, regardless.
User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:24 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#264 Post by zedz »

knives wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:37 pm Mysterious Skin as sci-fi?
Much of the film is about UFOs / alien abduction. But it's a pretty specialized context, which is why I'd need to rewatch it to assess its eligibility.
User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:24 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#265 Post by zedz »

therewillbeblus wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:38 pm
zedz wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:03 pm I also note that La Flor is, at least partly, a science fiction film (the conspiracy plots in the second and fourth episode), but that's probably not enough to get it over the line for me, unless other supporters want to twist my arm.
Dammit, well now I'm going to be mulling this one over for six months.

It's a tough call because the film is resorting to all kinds of fiction, including science-fiction especially at its zenith, to prove its hypothesis
Spoiler
which I still read to be the soulful line in the fourth chapter: “if you film someone next to a tree, something happens that it doesn’t if you film the tree alone,” driving home the celebration of humanity's infinite shades of beauty, as seen through observation of these four women in various contexts.
However, I'm definitely including films like Mauvais Sang that don't rest on their science-fiction influences, so we'll see. A good excuse to watch it yet again, regardless.
If it helps, the rule is that time travel always qualifies, and there's a time-travelling character in the fourth episode. (That episode has multiple sci-fi elements, as I recall - and witches!)
User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:49 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#266 Post by knives »

zedz wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:40 pm
knives wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:37 pm Mysterious Skin as sci-fi?
Much of the film is about UFOs / alien abduction. But it's a pretty specialized context, which is why I'd need to rewatch it to assess its eligibility.
Eh, since the story treats it as an imaginative fascination that seems too much a stretch to me.
User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:24 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#267 Post by zedz »

knives wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:44 pm
zedz wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:40 pm
knives wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:37 pm Mysterious Skin as sci-fi?
Much of the film is about UFOs / alien abduction. But it's a pretty specialized context, which is why I'd need to rewatch it to assess its eligibility.
Eh, since the story treats it as an imaginative fascination that seems too much a stretch to me.
You mean like Donnie Darko? :wink:
User avatar
bottled spider
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:59 am

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#268 Post by bottled spider »

Mr Sausage wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:29 pm
bottled spider wrote:Blade Runner
[*]How did Rachael get hold of a gun, and how did she come to be in the right place at the right time to save Deckard from Leon?[/list]

And so forth. The hilarious/depressing "do you even read Freud, bruh?" nonsense in the dedicated thread does nothing to persuade me this is a masterpiece.
Rachel is using the gun Leon had knocked out of Deckard’s hand.
Sheesh! Missed that.
User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:49 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#269 Post by knives »

Yeah. I'm not voting for it (that said one could argue that the thematic and narrative purpose of the imaginative elements in the Kelly is functionally sci-fi).
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#270 Post by domino harvey »

bottled spider, I don't like Blade Runner either, but I hope that won't stop you from seeing Blade Runner 2049, which is excellent and def making my list
User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:40 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#271 Post by therewillbeblus »

There are thankfully quite a few of us who feel that way. I really enjoyed reading that breakdown though, and also think 2049 does the themes of a great service by minimizing opportunities for literal nitpicking in making the ideas so potently philosophical.
User avatar
bottled spider
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:59 am

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#272 Post by bottled spider »

Yes, I liked 2049 a lot because the director took a real interest in questions like what it would be like to be a replicant, or what it is like to interact with a replicant -- a real philosophical and emotional engagement with the subject matter.
User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:24 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#273 Post by zedz »

domino harvey wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 10:59 pm bottled spider, I don't like Blade Runner either, but I hope that won't stop you from seeing Blade Runner 2049, which is excellent and def making my list
Looks like we have one more thing in common. After who knows how many years, we must be into double digits now.

I first saw Bladerunner on release, and my impressions haven't changed much with each subsequent rework: groundbreaking art direction masking a rather mediocre and shallow film, which in any version has seemed to me to be really badly paced. i was really surprised by how much I enjoyed Villeneuve's film, and though it was nearly an hour longer than the original it played much shorter for me.
User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:24 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#274 Post by zedz »

bottled spider wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 8:27 pm [*]The replicants are supposedly so physically indistinguishable from humans that they can only be identified by a psychological test. Shouldn't their [. . .] ability to immerse their hands in liquid nitrogen or boiling water without injury be dead giveaways?
I agree with your take on this film, but laughed at this point because it's basically the medieval witch test: if she doesn't drown, she must be a witch and we can burn her!
User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:40 pm

Re: The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

#275 Post by therewillbeblus »

Just thinking about 2049 possibly outranking the original on the forum's final list makes me warm inside, like K's soul
Post Reply